Xbox's "Always On"fiasco.

[Aulayna]

I, honestly, really don't care about it.

Our internet goes down from time to time - sure. But I'm currently always online anytime I play on my 360 anyway due to XBOX Live. Likewise on the (rare) occassion I'm on my PS3 it's usually connected to PSN.

I have a smartphone that's nearly always connected to the internet via WiFi.

This really doesn't rock my world.

My PC is pretty much always connected to the internet. It's no different to how everyone's sacred Valve have Steam setup. If you forgot to authorise for offline play then you're trout out of luck if you want to install and play a new game (or even half of the more modern titles). Last time I moved house I had no internet and was like oh I'll finally get around to installing Modern Warfare 2 - nope - couldn't, because Steam wouldn't let me until I connected to the internet. Of course, gamers seem to be oblivious to the fact that Valve, the Holy Grail, pulls a lot of the same trout that other companies get internet hate trains levelled at them for.

Also Diablo 3? People are still going on about that? Bar a couple of days of issues due to the game vastly exceeding how much they were expecting it to sell it was fine. Unlike Sim City it's also been patched numerous times since it's release and is a far better game as a result - compared to Sim City who's first "major" content is Nissan product placement DLC. The obvious main reason D3 was always online was due to Auction House and Real Money Auction House to provide more control over duping - Blizzard knew from D2 that there was a vast culture of selling items via external websites for money so they put that feature ingame to reduce the amount of people losing their accounts via such websites. They've even come out and admitted that the Auction House didn't really pan out the way they expected it too which is why they're not pushing similar functionality in the console version.

If always online brings additional functionality and benefits like I'm used too from MMOs, Steam and even from the current LIVE/Network services then fine.

I also vaguely recall reading something regarding that the 720 only has to be online when you boot up a game, not for the entire duration of your game session?

[Værn]

I don't think you can really compare Steam to a console. It's free to download, free to use, and designed to function through the internet. Not being able to download games without an internet connection is to be expected - after all, when you purchase a digital copy of a game online, there is no physical copy of the game to install from. But it does allow you to launch in offline mode and play games that you have downloaded, should you attempt to log on while your internet is down.

Now, if I was to spend the money to purchase a console and a physical copy of a game for that console, how would I expect it to work? I would expect to be able to plug the console into my TV, put the game in the console, turn the console on, and be able to play the game. I'm fine with consoles having online social networks and whatnot, but they shouldn't require an internet connection just to confirm that there is in fact a disc in the system.

[Aulayna]

The MW2 example I provided was with a physical version of the game. I've also had similar experiences with the likes Mass Effect 2 and I also wasn't able to play Left 4 Dead single player until I'd logged into Steam and chosen to go offline . Which meant that for pretty much the entire time I didn't have the internet the only games I could play were Solitaire and Minesweeper or games that I'd actually recently played before losing the internet.

If you have no idea what I'm on about - you actually have to login to Steam and choose "Go Offline" to be able to use certain games without an active internet connection.

https://support.steampowered.com/kb_...3160-agcb-2555

[Mirage]

If you didn't like these aspects of the games you played through steam, why would you be fine with the same stuff being implemented for every game on a next gen console?

I mean sure, you don't have to be extremely pissed off about it, but at the very least you should disagree with it.

[Pike]

I think the difference for me is that I'm used to a computer being online all the time, but I'm still old-fashioned and think it's weird for a console to be internet connected. xD

As for Steam, I agree that their "have to be online to play offline" requirement is pretty bad, and that's the one thing I dislike the most about Steam. I wish they'd change it. But ultimately, my love for Steam has to do with something else. Firstly I love Steam because Valve is supposedly the very best place to work in the gaming industry for various reasons, and I really want to support that sort of culture. Secondly, I love Steam because it's bringing gaming to Linux. If this takes off, there will be no reason for me to use Windows ever again, and I will be a very happy camper. No more dual booting, I'm taking it right off of my computer again.

So Steam may have its flaws but it's outweighed by its pluses, to me personally. I can't think of enough pluses for the new Xbox to justify me buying it yet, although I'm definitely open to changes of opinion. (And as it stands I'd still rather have the new Xbox than the new Playstation, so.)

[Loony BoB]

This won't affect me much as I'm always online anyway. Still, it's a notable annoyance and I can see why people are frustrated. I know I'd be really annoyed if my internet cut out and I suddenly lost my progress or something. That would suck balls.

Is there any confirmation that Sony isn't doing the same thing, out of curiosity?

[Madame Adequate]

I've only got one Internet cable running to my room and none of my trout is wireless, so getting a console online is actually a big hassle for me and involves moving stuff around so I can switch the cables.

And yes, people are still going on about D3, because huge numbers of people being unable to play the game they paid for at release is a pretty big piece of evidence that there are problems with always-online requirements. You can't just dismiss it by saying "It's all in the past now".

[Loony BoB]

Just found the answer to my own question, for anyone interested.

Sony: PS4 won't require 'always-on' internet connection | Games industry news | MCV

[Shauna]

The notion of always online is no good for me because in my current position I have really really poor, unstable internet, that craps out at the first sign of trouble. I cannot upgrade to anything better, because I legitimately have the best internet connection I can get. I would probably have to make sure that if I was wanting to play any games on the always online console, that the internet wasn't being used by anyone else just in case that caused my connection to drop off.

Sure, by the time this becomes prolific, my internet service may be better - but from where I am standing right now, it's not cool. Right now, I wouldn't be able to actually play anything that requires permanent internet access because I cannot be sure that my internet will be able to deal with it.

[Aulayna]

I've only got one Internet cable running to my room and none of my trout is wireless, so getting a console online is actually a big hassle for me and involves moving stuff around so I can switch the cables.

If only there were things like Hubs, Switches or PowerLine adapters to provide more convenience.

And yes, people are still going on about D3, because huge numbers of people being unable to play the game they paid for at release is a pretty big piece of evidence that there are problems with always-online requirements. You can't just dismiss it by saying "It's all in the past now".

Or it's more accurately a pretty big piece of evidence that sales forecasting needs to be better so more hardware is in place. It's also hardly dismissing it by pointing out that a) they worked through the issues pretty quickly, b) have improved the game substantially since then at no additional monetary cost and well... c) despite the uproar at launch it's still played by a subsantial amount of people worldwide to this day. Which on that note d) not everyone is going to get something on launch day/week which is when the most amount of issues tend to pop-up. Are there problems with it, sure - but for the most part they are short-term temporary problems.

Just look at something like Wings of Liberty and more recently Heart of the Swarm - where yes, you can play single player offline if you really want too but you still need to authenticate via Battle.net first with the caveat being you can't get achievements playing offline. Those launches went off without a hitch and people are far less up in arms about having to be connected to Battle.net to play especially now resume from replay has been added that makes disconnections non-game killing.

The great thing in the case of Diablo 3 is despite all the uproar both before launch and after launch about being always online it still went on to sell over 10 million copies. Which is the thing really, a minority of consumers are very vocal but then they still purchase the thing they've railed against - and those that don't, usually invest very little into the industry as a whole anyway. If the 720 enjoys any degree of success you can guarantee that Sony will be jumping onto the gravy train come the PS5 either willing, or by buckling under publisher pressure.

But then again I also remember the days when people were up in arms over playing console games over the internet because it destroyed the social aspect of playing games together.

Still despite living in rural Ireland with an internet connection that drops every couple of hours or pretty much all the time if it's raining - it still doesn't bother me. I'm not the type of person that picks-up console hardware at launch and my purchasing decision will, as always, be decided based on the respective games libraries. Besides the 720 hasn't even been officially unveiled yet so I will hold judgment until all the cards are actually on the table.

To me this is just the beginning, like it or loathe it the Always-On future is coming - and it's not just limited to gaming - give it 20 to 30 years and the imgur of tomorrow will be full of pictures joking about how the kids of tomorrow don't know what an ethernet cable or TV remote control are.

[Mirage]

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. There still is no reason to force always online when a game doesn't have any significant online features. It's just bullcrap.

[Iceglow]

I've only got one Internet cable running to my room and none of my trout is wireless, so getting a console online is actually a big hassle for me and involves moving stuff around so I can switch the cables.

If only there were things like Hubs, Switches or PowerLine adapters to provide more convenience.

I think Huxley that is the sound of you getting full on learned.

[Madame Adequate]

If only we didn't already have that stuff in my house and this is after we've got a load of devices wired up! If only we're not already stretching the Internet so that everyone complains about how slow it is, so adding more devices wouldn't be that good for our speed and regular disconnects (and we already pay for the best web that's on the market in my area so it's not like we can upgrade).

I agree that always-on is the future, but I think that it should happen because it provides utility for the customer. As it stands it's usually because it provides a perceived benefit to the investor's pocketbooks because it ostensibly prevents piracy and the industry's myopia surrounding piracy is an astonishing testament of ignorance and short-term thinking.

Consoles aren't like a PC where you can just alt-tab to chat or experience Steve piling on because he thinks someone scored a hit on you which he himself will never manage; they've got to provide something else for always-on to be a good deal for the people actually buying the product. If you look at a game like Spore, whatever all its other flaws, that's a case where always-on made a good deal of sense because one of the game's most fundamental aspects and selling points was the fact that so much of what you saw was user-created phalluses content. What good does it do me that Diablo 3 is always online? Yes it sold a lot, but it was in spite of that, not because of it. I'm not trying to argue that nobody ever accepts always online, or that a game is doomed to be a financial failure due to it, I'm arguing that it's reasonable to expect a game be playable when you buy it and not when the servers are finally working properly, and I'm arguing that if something doesn't benefit the player then it's a pretty questionable addition.

[Iceglow]

Huxley I've scored so many hits on you that you're starting to look like spotted dick.

[Madame Adequate]